HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1999.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING
Saturday, February 27, 1999
Sheraton Gateway Hotel - Portola Room
Mayor Mary Janney convened the joint city council / planning commission study session on the
above date in at 9:01 a.m.
CouNcu- pRESENT: GALLIcAN, JANNEy, KNIGHT, O'MeuoNv, SptwgLLI
PI-eNNIuc CouvtssloN
PRBsBNT: BoJUES, CoFFEy, DEAL, Kptcnnex, Knv, LUzURIAGA, Vlsuce
Srerp PnrspNr: ANoBRSoN, ARGyRES, MoNRoE
1. DssrcN Rpvrpw Issups - DrscusstoN
The city planner gave a brief introduction about some of the issues that have arisen out of our
experience with design review including first floor additions, new single story houses, multi-family
and commercial uses. She noted there were a number of issues on the agenda beside the discussion
about design review and asked for council and cornmission to prioritize which of these issues we
should be addressing in the coming year. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that she liked the
direction that the city is currently moving with design review. She was concerned about workload
on both the commission and staff. She would like to have a consultant such as Martin Dreiling
assist with the writing of the design guidelines. She felt that these guidelines should be strongly
recommended but not mandated.
Vice Mayor Knight distributed copies of the ciry code and indicated that she feels the planning
commission has the authority under this section for design review. She likes some of the handouts
we have done to date but feels that we should do more. She brought up issue of commercial design
review. Felt we should do more where commercial interfaces with residential as it does on Howard
at Myrtle. Also of concern is where multi-family interfaces single-family. With description in
staff report understand first floor single-family issue, feel it is valid to look at design review. She
did feel that we needed some form of minor modification so that people did not have to go through
the design review process for minor changes to approved design review permits.
The city attorney noted that concerning apartment rental units and commercial development;
presently, these can be built with just a building permit and no planning commission review.
CEQA review is required for more than four units but design is not a CEQA issue. Councilman
Spinelli felt that the areas where multiple-family interfaces single-family is a problem and
apartments should have the same review standards as condominiums, and that some commercial
areas adjacent to residential and specific retail areas such as Broadway and Burlingame Avenue
should also be reviewed. Councilman Galligan thought that the number one concern with design
review was time. He thought that if staff made recommendations as in other cities, that this would
reduce the amount of time that the commission would need to take on individual items.
Planning Commissioner Deal noted that the workload issue for professional designers and
contractors is that there is too much work for everyone. So long as the economy stays strong, he
483
does not see a reduced workload for the commission. Councilman Galligan noted that we may
need to add additional staff and give more authority to reduce the amount of time the planning
commission spends, and he reiterated his concern that staff make recommendations. Planning
Commissioner Coffey noted that the addition of a consent calendar to the planning commission
agenda may help in the long run, but he thought we could save some time by reducing some of
introducing staff comments that precede the public hearings that have already been covered in the
written staff reports. Councilman Galligan felt we should look at some code revisions so that if we
want garages in the rear of property, the code should clearly state that. He also thought that design
review for one story houses should be required only when the roof ridge exceeds a certain height.
Vice Mayor Knight thought we did need to revise our design guidelines to address air, light, and
privacy, also does not want design review to focus on style of bay window or color of house.
Planning Commissioner Deal noted guidelines need to be more mandatory; he also thought we
should look at single family new construction to avoid future problems. Some current single-
family homes are massive with 10-to-L}-foot plate lines and we needed some method to require
review. He suggested that single story review could possibly be implemented by a subcommittee to
review these applications prior to plaruring commission meetings. Councilman Galligan felt single
story additions subject to design review could be limited to those with a roof height over a given
number.
Councilman Spinelli said design review needs to consider impacts on existing development on all
sides, including the house to rear. Planning Commissioner Coffey thought that the single story
issue was really about parking, and that any new single family construction should have a minimum
of a two-car garage. Councilman Spinelli thought we should be requiring in the code parking in
the rear. Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed that we should require garuge space in the rear of
property when possible. She also thought that single story design review should be required if the
addition is over 750 square feet. She agreed that we also need to increase our parking
requirements for single family and multiple family developments especially where next to existing
single family and commercial uses and would like to see design review for apartments. She did not
feel general commercial design review on the bayfront was necessary because there was so little
land left. Planning Commissioner Vistica felt rve shouid be expanding our cofirmercial and
apartment design review program. Planning Commissioner Luzuriaga agreed that apartments
should be reviewed the same as residential condorniniums. Planning Commissioner Key agreed
and thought additional parking requirements and design review would help. Mayor Janney
summarized the need to look at first floor plate heights, parking requirements, and garage
placement; she reinforced that we need to allow multi family building along El Camino and other
transportation corridors.
2. Aopouecv op Penxmc RpoutRpusNrs
Councilman Spinelli noted that apartment dwellers are parking in R-l areas all over town. It was
noted that you could have two to three cars per one-bedroom apartment because of roommates. He
felt that we should be stricter on parking for apartments. Vice Mayor Knight noted that we need to
address the double standard for apartments and residential condominiums. Councilwoman
O'Mahony agreed on the need to revise parking for apartments; she felt there should be guest
parking required at a ratio of one space for every five units. We also need to look at more red
zones to protect sight lines near corners in multi family areas. Planning Commissioner Key noted
that guest parking needs to be at grade to accommodate drop-off and deliveries. Vice Mayor
February 27, L999 484 Burlingame City Council
Knight noted that if we made changes in guest parking outside of a security gate, she did not feel
one space would be enough. She also would support higher on-site parking requirements for
single-family houses. Planning Commissioner Keighran noted the square footage at a house or
apartment could be used to determine the required number of parking spaces.
The commission and council next discussed parking in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. It
was noted by Councilman Galligan that the council has decided to do a parking demand study of
the area. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that we need to be sure to accommodate the anchor
stores because they are a part of the health of the avenue but we need to require them to participate
in the community life of the avenue and any additional parking provided. She also felt we should
end the first floor retail parking exemption in Subarea A. Mayor Janney noted the success of the
city is a strong partnership with the business community and hotels. Councilman Spinelli felt that
we need to look at some type of parking project involving bonding and requiring Safeway and Saks
to participate. We also should talk to the post office concerning acquiring their staff parking area
adjacent to the current city lot. He did not feel we should overbuild with structures like San
Mateo. Vice Mayor Knight noted that she liked the surface parking idea including the post office
site but felt we should also be looking at some type of transportation system management (TSM)
for employees to reduce parking demand. We can't just keep building parking but could improve
access from transit to places of employment in commercial areas by extending the Free Bee shuttle
route.
3. FuruRe or BuRlINceup AvpNuE ARpa
Vice Mayor Knight noted her concern about the future of auto row, especially because of its
importance to the city's economy. Councilman Spinelli noted that the Regan building next to the
train station is changing ownership and possibly use to go to retail. We should look at trying to
address the parking issues in this area as well. There was a general consensus that we ought to
continue with the policy of pedestrian-oriented retail and service commercial activiry along
Burlingame Avenue.
4. Uponre on R-3/R-4 ZorvrNc DlsrRIcr REcur-euoNs
councilman Spinelli noted that some new areas might move from commercial to high density
residential and we needed codes in place which reflect what the city expects for this use.
Councilwoman O'Mahony noted we need to be particularly concerned about the interface between
uses. Planning Commissioner Deal noted that we may want to look at some limit on a size of unit
as related to parking because units are now getting so large more people live in them. He also felt
that we should look at allowing more height than the 35-feet review line if by adding height we can
improve the design and setbacks for a project.
There was a general discussion that parking should be increased for R-3 and R-4 projects and that
we currently have a double standard when comparing apartments and condominiums. Attention
should be paid to other items such as trash / recycling rooms, storage, bicycle racks for apartments
as well as residential condominiums. There was some agreement that more flexibility was needed
in development standards, especially height, if result was a better looking project; height might be
an incentive to provide other amenities in the project.
Burlingame City Council 485 February 27, 1999
5. SncoNo UNrr AuNesrv
The city planner explained the discussions from prior years concerning second unit amnesty and
the need to proceed with this because of our housing element review which will occur in 2001.
Vice Mayor Knight and Councilwoman indicated their support for moving forward with second
unit amnesty program in this year's work progranr. There was general consensus among the
group.
6. SuuuaRv oR Lasr Ypen's WoRr PRocRavt
Councilwoman O'Mahony felt that we needed to look at adding more staff to assist the planning
commission. Plaruring Commissioner Key wanted the council to be aware of work proceeding on
the food establishment regulations, noting that they would be coming to the planning commission
and council soon. Councilman Galligan again stated that goal is stability on commission, we
needed to make better use of commission's time and that possibly more staff would help. Planning
Commissioner Luzuriaga thought it would be helpful to hire Martin Dreiling to help create and do
the artwork for the design review guidelines document. Vice Mayor Knight wondered whether
some type of time limit for the planning cornmission meetings might help. Overall for the work
program, she noted that she had the same priorities from last year's meeting: restaurant regulation,
revise multiple family regulations, second dwelling unit amnesty. She supported the idea of hiring
a specialist to assist with the drafting of the design guidelines.
7. CouNcrt- / CoutvrsstoN CouupNrs
Planning Commissioner Luzuriaga felt it would be useful to have some type of training for the
public, perhaps through the recreation department, on what the city's objectives are for the design
review process. Council and commission thought this would be a good idea. The city planner
attempted to briefly sumrnarize the work program priorities which came out of the discussions for
the morning. It appeared that council and commission want to proceed with extending design
review to single family first floor additions and new construction and to multiple family uses but
not to commercial uses at this time. Review parking requirements for single family development
and for multiple family residential uses. Second, to review the R-3/R-4 zoning district regulations.
Thirdly, we should be reviewing our parking requirements for multi family and commercial
development in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Fourth, to proceed on the second unit
arnnesty program if time allows.
8. FRou rsp FlooR
Two of the public members in attendance thanked council and commission for what they did
AolouRNueNr
The meeting adjourned at 1l:36 a.m.
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerkv
February 27, 1999 486 Burlingame City Council